94 how much of a difference he's made to d " our common en eavors. T HE notion of Hillary Clinton as a Presidential candidate is an inter- esting one. She is almost an icon for many women today; Diane Blair says she thinks Hillary sees herself as "the new American woman," in trying to bal- ance multiple personal and professional roles, and the often conflicting demands on time and energy that they entail. This note naturally strikes a responsive chord with millions of American women. Hillary is, of course, attempting the feat on a singularly elevated platform, in full public view. Still, while most women simply occupy these disparate roles, and struggle to perform them well, Hillary uses them to achieve a desired effect- invoking her familial roles to soften her presentations before congressional com- mittees, giving interviews to stress the domestic side of her life after, at one point, unleashing a particularly vocifer- ous attack on the health industry. There is much that has been groundbrealang in her time as First Lady, and much to be admired, but nothing has been more conspicuous (or distracting) than the barrage of changing images of Hillary. Indeed, if politics has become to some degree the art of packaging, Hillary is a grand master. She reached her zenith, to date, at her press conference in April, where she manifested sympathy for the reporters' concerns, and, of course, con- trition-however narrow. But all this seems contrived-some of the images do not align, the moral exemplar does not fit with the person who carries out tough political acts-and there is a com- pulsion to camouflage. What are we meant not to see? A hard, ambitious, oversure intellect ready to make politi- cal deals that the more squeamish might shrink from-a real pol, and yet one who, particularly as a woman in an age that is still in many respects sexist, might have little political appeal? What seems plain, to one watching Hillary Clinton as First Lady, is that she is always learning, and that the makeover never stops. And, notwithstanding the President's denial, if her goal is, as friends have suggested, to fashion her own place in history, or to become President herself: then that means that for the first time since she decided to throw her lot in with Bill Clinton she is no longer merely an adjunct. There are vestiges of such a role, since at this moment her power is still de- pendent on and largely protected by his. But the bedrock premise of their partner- ship may be altered; for what is best for him politically is no longer necessarily best for her. In this ongoing division of interests, the potential for competition looms large, and traces of it do seem discern- ible. Hillary became reconciled to the President's pursuing NAFTA (and puttIng health care aside) only after several days of debate, and of being "gentled along" by Maggie Williams; and, even after she agreed, she took actions in the pre- NAFTA period which, whether she was conscious of it or not, had the potential for undermining NAFf A'S passage. And, although some members of Hillary's staff are said to be frightened of her, they are also worshipful, proud of the spirit of solidarity that infuses their group. Jan Piercy emphasized the per- fect diversity of Hillary's staff-Wil- liams is black, and her scheduling direc- tor, Patti Solis, is Hispanic-and said, rather pointedly, "In Hillary's staff there is a camaraderie and professionalism un- equalled by any staff in the White House." ConnIe Fails, referring to the cohesiveness of Hillary's staff: said, with a laugh, "It drives Bill crazy!" In the late fall, Hillary introduced the subject of crime into at least one of her speeches. A friend said that crime would be a sequel to her health-care effort, but a person close to the White House ex- claimed, "It cannot be. It has to be his issue! Gergen"-David Gergen, coun- sellor to the President-"will not allow it!" In late February, when the Clinton health plan was an object of widespread scorn and derision, the famously ingenu- ous Senator Rockefeller remarked to me, "I think, although I can't prove this, that she may be pullIng back a little now- that she wants this to be seen as the President's plan." That there was at this time an emerging strategy to put some distance between her and the belea- guered plan was further suggested when one of Hillary's strongest partisans tried to persuade me that I ought not to fo- cus on health care in my examination of Hillary's time as First Lady. But surely, I said, that has been her major effort. "She's done a lot of other things that are very im- portant," this person told me. "For example, she's redone the White House. Not THE NEW YORKER, MAY 30. 1994 enough attention has been paid to that." While it remains true that Hillary Clinton and the President will rightly receive credit for any health-care legis- lation that passes, the chances of its bearing much resemblance to the Clinton plan seem increasingly remote. Senator Edward Kennedy's proposed modifications to the Clinton plan seek to make it more palatable by, among other things, exempting small, low- wage businesses from the employer mandate. But in the last couple of weeks Senate Republican opposition to any kind of mandate, individual or em- ployer, has seemed to harden. Almost two weeks after Robert Reischauer's testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on the Cooper-Breaux bill, Senator Packwood-who had earlier supported the idea of a mandate--told reporters that mandates were dead. A day later, on May 15th, Senator Robert Dole--who had been a co-sponsor of the Chafee bill, which has an indi- vidual mandate (that is, individuals would be forced by law to purchase health insurance )-said, "Individual mandates aren't going to pass." If man- dates were to fall, that would leave anyone of the various competing bills-or, more likely, an amalgam, such as one combining Cooper-Breaux and Chafee-as an alternative. But when George Mitchell, the Senate Ma- jority Leader, and a strong supporter of the White House on health care, was asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether he would recommend that the President veto a bill such as Cooper- Breaux, which takes care of ninety-one per cent of the population, Senator Mitchell said yes. The health-care debate on Capitol Hill is today in such a state of flux that almost anything might happen. But one thing seems certain: a large bipartisan coalition-something that Moynihan, among others, has been intent on achieving since the start of this legisla- tive process-will be necessary to pass any significant health-care-reform pack- age. And, as Senator Packwood told me, while it is still possible that the Sen- ate Finance Committee (with eleven Democrats and nine Republicans) might find enough votes to pass something that resembled the Clinton plan-with an employer mandate, premium caps, some form of alliances, plus entitle-